Hermeneutics and Conflict

My grandfather took a ragged breath and continued, “Son, I never taught you to oppose the Lord. And I have the right to be hurt.” I had just informed my grandfather who had dedicated more than 50 years of his adult life to preaching in the conservative Churches of Christ that I disagreed with him. I told him that there was great likelihood that the Church of Christ where I serve as the preacher would soon add another worship service that would possibly include instrumental worship and incorporate women in public teaching roles. I had not called him to explain my theological rationale to him—I knew that he would not change his mind, nor would he change my mind on this. I had called him to be honest with him, to tell him that although I disagreed with him, I loved him and respected him.

He was hurt—he had a right to be. But in his hurt, he lashed out. He said he was ashamed of me. He told me that he hoped I failed, my church failed. He told me I had become an opponent of Christ and his church. He told me I was no longer in Christ’s kingdom. He told me that I was going to hell and he was withdrawing fellowship from me.

When my father left our family my senior year in high school, my grandfather stepped in and became the most influential and important man in my life. As he continued to rebuke me, I didn’t try to argue. I just repeated myself over and over. “I called to tell you that I love you. That I respect you. That even though I disagree, I care deeply about you. I called to ask you to still be my friend. Will you please be my friend, Papa? Please.”

I believe that it was hard for him to say, but in the end he said that he had to withdraw fellowship from me. I felt like I had begged the only father figure I had left to not leave, and he had left. It hurt.

[the original post has been edited by the author to be as fair as possible to my grandfather]

Honestly, this conversation was very recent, and I am still raw from it. I don’t share it so that I can relive the pain or buy some sympathy. I don’t share this to somehow impress you with my own maturity or self-control in a heated conflict, and I certainly don’t share it to run my grandfather down publicly. I mean this: It’s not about me. This conversation is one that many people have had with loved ones over issues like this, and I think that conversations like this are becoming more frequent for those with roots in our fellowship.

Here is what I know—the church of Christ has been arguing and dividing over interpretation for a long time. But lately the conversation has changed. And my disagreement with my grandfather is a clear example of this change. I believe that the current divisions we see cropping up in our fellowship are not about interpretations of scripture, but are more fundamentally about the use of scripture—about our understanding of the nature of scripture and its purposes.

In the past, our fellowship argued and divided over how to interpret the commands, examples, and inferences that we found in our Bible. Should the local church support orphan homes, have kitchens, have Sunday school, or fellowship divorced persons? All of these centered on which interpretation of the commands and examples and necessary inferences of scripture were most compelling. And in truth, we also argued over instrumental worship and women’s roles in the assembly along these same lines—and there was widespread uniformity at our conclusions, because we mostly assumed together that the scales were fair, all we had to do was pile up the arguments and measure.

Honestly, the divisive issues that are currently facing the church of Christ are not any different than most of those in the past. Questions of instruments in corporate worship or women in public teaching roles are no more significant or substantial now than they were fifty years ago. But, I believe that the current disputes are very different in terms of essence. The difference is that now, instead of arguing about issues, we are arguing about how to argue over issues.

We find ourselves arguing over how to most healthily read the Bible altogether. Many in our fellowship (myself among them) no longer assume that a hermeneutic built on commands, examples, and necessary inferences is consistently correct or even healthy. So we find ourselves at an impasse, because neither side is playing the game with the same set of rules. We no longer all agree that the scales are fair—and some of us believe the scales are not even the best tool for the job at all.

This explains why when my grandfather brings up the “strange fire” of Nadab and Abihu, I want to ask him if he really believes the grand theological narrative of scripture would place that single story at a central place.

This is one of the issues at center of the dispute over women’s roles in public worship assemblies. “Conservatives” point to Paul permitting women to learn in silence and highlight the SILENCE part. “Liberals” point at the PERMISSION part and ask why we should presently use a text to oppress when it was originally intended by the author to liberate.

When “conservatives” urge people to Behold The Pattern, “liberals” start summarizing The Blue Parakeet.

The bottom line is that some of us are pointing out what we believe the Bible plainly says, and others of us are asking about how the Bible actually speaks in the first place.

Until we as a fellowship reconcile the hermeneutical question, we will struggle to really make headway with regard to our divisions. At best we will agree to disagree, and at worst, we will divide our fellowship and see more families undergoing the same heartache as mine. Churches must be willing to address the deeper question of hermeneutics before they can even begin to talk through questions of interpretation. What is troubling is that few seem willing to enter into this discussion about hermeneutics, I think, because it is hard.

For now, I am compelled to believe that it is a minister’s job to take the lead in equipping, modeling, and training those sheep in his/her care in how to read the Bible most healthily. And this is not a single sermon, or even a series of sermons on narrative theology and some caricatured straw man approach to the command, example, inference hermeneutic. Ministers must commit themselves to the long term process of the day-in and day-out application of the scripture to life—the rhythms of biblical reading, interpretation, and application we call Christian living.

Part of this, quite frankly, calls for much better preaching on our part. If we want our communities of faith to learn to read differently, our preaching must come from and exhibit the reading we want them to embrace and learn. Simply put, we have to stop being satisfied with moralism—preaching morals and virtues. Not because moral living or virtuous living is bad, but because the core of the gospel narrative of scripture is not becoming a better or more moral you. The point of the gospel narrative of scripture is that you are loved and chosen and God has done and will do everything to restore creation and redeem his people.

So, the point of—let’s say—Esther is not to tell people to be more courageous (yes, I have preached that sermon before). You might as well tell them to be prettier too. The larger point of Esther is that God is still at work to redeem everything, and God uses every opportunity—even our “diaspora” moments where we feel so weak and powerless and caught up in things beyond our control—to move forward on the mission of redemption. We are not forgotten. That is gospel in light of the biblical narrative as a whole.

And preaching the beatitudes won’t charge people to get better at being a peacemaker or increase their humility, as if it were a list of virtuous precepts that we must master to receive the promises that follow (and yes, I have preached that sermon too). Why would we try to make mourning sound virtuous (it’s mourning over sin, right? If only the text said that.)? The point of the beatitudes is to express how radically present the kingdom of God is—even and especially among those who in their grief, their brokenness, and their humiliation think they are being left out of God’s blessings—and to help us realize that God’s kingdom is bigger and better than we ever imagined. That is gospel in light of the biblical narrative as a whole.

When we as preachers and teachers relentlessly communicate everything in light of the grand story of the gospel (instead of stopping at the pop-psychology and expected personal piety boost that moralism offers), we begin to change the culture of Bible reading in our community. We begin to tap into the collective imagination that our church shares regarding scripture and how to use it.

This calls for great patience. It will take years to retrain our eyes to see something else, to get us to read something in a new light. And it will take much longer if we don’t learn to read together. We must cultivate space in our assemblies for us to read scripture together and imagine the world in light of that gospel truth together. Do we have room for this sort of practice and discussion in our services?

What makes all of this so hard is that it doesn’t necessarily have a really nice product at the end to offer as proof that the process was worth it. It is sort of like the difference in building a house and making a home. Building a house is an activity that has its value in the extrinsic product—the house. Making a home is an activity with intrinsic value that has its worth in the tickle-fights, bedtime stories, snuggling, and dinner tables of the actual ongoing process. But in the end, there is no tangible extrinsic product to point at.

Committing ourselves to changing a hermeneutic is messy. Shifting from a fractured or ineffective hermeneutic does not always result in a new hermeneutic that offers clear concise answers with easy handles. Shifting to a narrative theological hermeneutic will instead offer you nuance, complexity, questions, and a “more-art-than-science” finger-painting messiness that most of us don’t want to live with. I mean, finger-painting is fun to do with the kids, and maybe we’ll keep one piece of “art” as a keepsake, but would you finger-paint every wall of your house?

But the measuring of the worthiness of a hermeneutic by a product at the end seems to be ingrained implicitly in us. After all, don’t we want to point to something at the end of our scriptural exploration and be able to say it worked—look! our method produces faithful Christians. But, is it that simple? What if the value (worth…worthiness) is not in the product, but the process—what makes a Christian faithful is their continuing engagement with and abiding presence before God. What if the value of a hermeneutic is how well and how frequently and consistently it delivers the reader to surrender to God, reliance upon God, and bold trust in God? What if the value of Bible reading is not so easily found in the structures built as a result of reading, but in the reading itself?

Leading a community through a hermeneutical shift takes more patience, energy, time, and commitment than most of us have (certainly more than I have by myself). Oddly enough, this is why it is so essential that ministers commit themselves to others who can minister to them. Persistence and perseverance are communal practices.

As for me, the costs are real and the hurt is real. But I would rather spend myself doing this hard thing that will prepare our fellowship for the future than stay safe by letting our fellowship live hand-to-mouth when it comes to our reading of scripture… because I love the church.

———-

Postscript (added 02/26):

For everyone who has taken the time to read this (many more than I expected), I have a request:

Please pray for my relationship with my grandfather. He is such an amazingly good man with a true love for God and a zeal for his word. Yes, he lashed out in his hurt, and that was not right. But he is no villain. He is still one of my heroes and I love him deeply. Please pray that our relationship can weather this and God’s grace will make good out of this. Thanks. -AH

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

One problem is that so few people in conservative congregations see the need to re-examine how we interpret scriptures. Like Walter Scott, they think we have fully restored the NT church and that any change in how we think, how we interpret scripture or how we go through the motions of corporate worship is a departure from the true faith. They see any deviation from 5 acts, 5 steps or a 3 part hermaneutic as an attack on “the Lord’s church” and any “change agent” who dares to question our current practice is marked as divisive. How do you get them to admit that there might be another way? I haven’t been able to break through the walls they have built up and I see attendance and enthusiasm decreasing.

Jos, I can relate to what you are talking about. I was raised in those churches (and love those churches deeply). I think the best way to try and reach folks to provide an awareness for the need to shift our hermeneutic is to ultimately point them to the faith of Jesus (not just faith IN Jesus, but the faith OF Jesus–what he believed and practiced). How did Jesus use scripture? That really opens some possible discussions about the assumptions we make. This doesn’t have to be an all out assault with an aggressive timetable–I have found such approaches rarely work. Patience really is key. The point is not to force submission–no one should feel attacked–but rather help them imagine (and you model for them) a different hermeneutic that yields results more closely matching the faith of Jesus.

Still, there are times to show when the CENI hermeneutic is less than helpful–looking at the Woods-Cogdill debates is often a safe on ramp for this (Cogdill provides better CENI rationale on his side of NOT supporting orphan homes, but in the end Woods’ appeal to the “heart of Jesus” ultimately “won” the debate with about 90% of the movement adopting his position). It’s a good example of when we have stepped out of our hermeneutical commitment in the past because that hermeneutic did not produce a helpful result.

Being labeled a “change agent” is a hard thing to navigate. But ultimately the only appeal you have is to their own knowledge of you and your heart for them. And while you are trying to change them, that does not mean that you are trying to lead them away from Jesus.

Ultimately, the shift is very slow–remember churches turn like ocean liners, not jet skis. And it is made bit by bit. I have to remind myself that the most important thing I need to do is help them know the Lord and trust him–they can and will be saved through Jesus, even with their CENI hermeneutic, and they should never be made to feel otherwise.

Stay with me for a minute…. I’m not sure that command, example and necessary inference (CENI) is all that bad if we apply it to the New Testament and not the traditions of the Institutional Church. If you apply CENI to the New Testament, there is no “Worship Service” or “Corporate Worship”. What we find is Believers meeting together daily, and after some period of time on the first day of the week for the purpose of edification and to “spur one another on to love and good works”.

We find people giving to meet the needs of others as those needs were identified, not “We are commanded to return a portion to the Lord on the first day of the week as we have been prospered” (which I have heard all of my life).

We find Jesus instituting the Lord’s Supper on a weeknight with no directive as to how often, and then examples of believers taking it daily….then the one reference to the first day of the week.

When we apply CENI to the traditions of me, our reference frame is not tied down, it is always shifting
.
When we apply CENI to the New Testament, we find the believers had “Everything in common” (ouch)!

Oh, and if we truly apply CENI to the New Testament we will, “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. (Rom 14:1-2).”

I have been in several conversations about hermenutics lately that make me want to throw up my hands, scream, and cry. I want to do the right thing, and I want to do what the Bible says. But how can you do what the Bible says when everyone believes they are right, can “prove” it by Scripture, yet come to diametrically opposed positions?

Romans 10:9, “… if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Let’s try some logic… a=confess b=believe c=salvation
According to this verse, c=a+b

Acts 2:37-38, “Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

d=repent e=baptized c=salvation
According to this verse, c=d+e

So which is it? c=d+e or c=a+b? One person thinks it’s the first formula and another thinks it’s the second formula. Who’s right? Neither because it’s a contradiction. Blame the bible, not each other.

I appreciate the opportunity to pass along one thought about this – I have heard the limitations of the CENI approach described several times lately (and I understand that there are some and it has been used poorly by some in the past). I have also heard several calls for a hermeneutical shift. But I have not heard a new or alternative hermeneutic approach clearly articulated. It seems there is a great deal of deconstruction (this approach is outdated, shoddy, etc.), but I have not seen as much reconstruction in its place (instead, here is the approach we should use). It seems to me that picking apart our history might be easy for us to do, but it is not all that helpful. I would be interested in seeing a new hermeneutical approach that is fully fleshed out.

Andrew, this is a good point, and rather than making my post a full book length piece, I edited most of that exploration out and ended with more practical steps to leading that shift. I did, however, try to drop some implicit nods of my cap to a biblical redemptive narrative or gospel narrative approach (or hermeneutic) in which the story of redemption from creation to the eschaton becomes the framework for interpreting and understanding the placement of individual stories and passages from scripture. Perhaps the most accessible exploration of this is Scot McKnight’s Blue Parakeet, although Hauerwas’ discussion of Narrative Theology in several of his works has been really influential as well.

If I have more time to write more pieces, I would love to do more constructive work in this area. But the real point of this piece was not to deride CENI; rather to explain that the hermeneutical discussion is the real source of our conflict right now and we need to move the discussion to that deeper place for us to move forward beyond our current dislocation.

I definitely understand the limitations of an article, and I appreciate your response. I have read and benefited from McKnight and Hauerwas, and I think I have an idea of the redemptive hermeneutic you are talking about. I guess it just seems to me that it would be helpful to hold out the alternative hermeneutic and flesh it out as an option before asking people to move away toward it. From my vantage point, it seems that many are calling for a change, but people don’t understand what change they are being called to. Even when we speak about “moving forward,” it seems that would be moving forward to a new hermeneutic instead of the old one, and if someone didn’t understand what that hermeneutic was, they would be less likely to move in that direction. I think a clear delineation would help people to understand each other in these discussions.

The request was for a description of a new hermeneutic before trashing the old. Adam Hill replied by giving an in-depth account of how to view scripture (hermeneutics). All good, but he did not address the problem.

Most of the comments in this debate use words most people do not comprehend, possibly never heard. They need something easy, not the “history of” or the “root word” of a dead language. The problem rests in “hard line” dogmatism where traditions have become “scripture.” These beliefs segregate unity.

First and foremost, God is not petty! Most religious arguments are petty, really petty. If everybody would do what Jesus taught, this process would become simple enough for a child. Begin and end all discussions with, “Where is the love, mercy, and forgiveness of God? Do my beliefs show love and respect for my neighbor?” When these questions are applied, the petty arguments go away, like the old men who wanted to stone the adulteress. Then, love will shine and change lives.

I put this on my FB page when I shared Adam’s article. Here goes. I never do this:

It is messy and we as autonomous congregations need to give grace to each other. You are so right. They are the same old arguments. Excellent article. I am not a theologian so for you who are please forgive my simplistic view.

We who are convinced of the changes with our contextual hermeneutic need a Church of Christ that welcomes us with open arms and allows us to use our gifts. Those who have a flat view of scripture have a number of congregations with their view. So be it. . As far me and Tom ( my dear husband of 48 years), and our house in our years left, I do not want spend our time demonizing the flat view of the scripture. My hope is that we can allow others to hold a contextual view of scripture and have churches with this new hermeneutic.
Tom and I were blessed to be able to learn and be mentored by Dr. Frank Pack, Department Chair in the Pepperdine Bible Department and our pulpit preacher. What a humble, courageous and intelligent gentleman. In the 70s we were part of a series of Sunday night classes on Women and the Church. No one had asked for this series. This was pure Frank Pack. He would end each lesson with, a closing prayer and then engage in a lively discussion. Even LaGard Smith was there for one lesson. Plus Frank and his intelligent and eloquent wife Della lived the new egalitarian view of marriage as did others Jean (Della’s sister in law) and Mark Hager. My husband Tom with study and after previously taking the Great Bible Doctrines from Frank at ACU changed his hemeneutic. I was busy like Martha “doing for the church.” I gave it little thought.

When a horrific family crisis came in the 80s with church people that I had trusted and loved being the catalyst, I threw myself into the Word and many books. I ended up going to Fuller Seminary for four years. I chose to get an MFT degree with 1 plus years of theology. (At that time with a husband as a long time elder, I did not want to rock the boat any more by studying to be a minister of any kind.) I loved my rich time at Fuller. Eventually after spending Sundays crying during the songs at church, I had to make my own decision. Tom and I were a marital Us that completely sided with the new hermeneutic. For years we had submitted to each other and sacrificed for each other — a struggle at times —- but so much better than the alternative.

I promised God wherever I lived or worshiped I would fight for the souls and redemption of my two sons, two daugthers, five granddaugthers and four grandsons for another choice in the Churches of Christ.. I want them to be part of the CofC. They are smart, kind and have so much to teach us. I want them to be able use their gifts. During my children’s middle school years, I kept silent. I cannot do that any longer. God calls me to use my voice. I must meet God and give my own account.
At the same time I never mean to demonize the other side. I love them and I never mean to be unkind or mean spirited. I once was one of them. I am broken so I know that I do not do everything just “right.” I mess up often. We must lavish grace on each other like our Jesus, Paul and Mary Magadalene.
Thank you Adam for a thoughtful piece. My heart hurts for you. When family cannot give you their blessing, it is a arduous struggle. We all have people in our families that cannot….at least at this point. May God bless you.
~ Sheila

Thanks Adam for this thoughtful article. The subject of hermeneutics and scripture, or how we read the Bible, is of great importance. It matters not just that we read scripture but how we read scripture, for how we read shapes so much of how we understand and follow Jesus.

It has been said that one cannot reason a person out of a position which that person was not reasoned into. Reason sees the evidence and draws conclusion. Tradition holds the conclusions and underpins it with evidence. Not to insult the intelligence of anyone, but in my experience, the CoC has fallen most often into the second category. It has been unthinkable for us to contradict beloved Granddad, so we accepted what he told us the Bible says. When we got old enough to want to determine such things for ourselves, we divided along two paths. Group A sought to confirm Granddad’s -and by now, our- tradition, and started into Strongs to seek out biblical underpinning for it. Group B left the question open -quite a step for those of us who still love Granddad– and from that fairly neutral position, did not find the evidence offered to be convincing at all. And in all cases, the reason Group B did not find those proof texts compelling was that we saw other evidence and reasoned our conclusions from the whole basket. Invariably, it was not the scriptures which were our point of contention, but the reasoning applied to those scriptures.

When the traditional CoC hears its doctrinal distinctives questioned, it does NOT leap to reason, but to defend. From this position there is no reasoning, because considering an alternative view leaves some deeply-held views under attack, and we simply cannot let that continue. The discussion moves swiftly to “verse versus verse”, an approach which under other conditions we would deny could ever be valid, as the entire Bible is true.

When that fails, the next fallacy is appeal to consequences, in which we say, “Once saved always saved can’t be true because I know some scoundrels who used to be Christians and God surely won’t them into heaven.” Or, “You can’t tell people that they already have forgiveness in Christ! They’ll live like hell!” From there we descend to the ugliest sorts of ad hominem, to dusting off our feet, to slander, and then to silence.

When reason is not part of the foundation of our interpretations, reason has no power to change those interpretations, no matter how powerful the reasoning. “Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion, still.”

Charles, I understand where you are coming from, but I would like to push back on a couple of things. I realize that we are speaking in generalities when we talk about these issues, and as such, we cannot describe every kind of person or opinion that exists. But there are some assumptions being made that I would question.

First, I firmly believe it is possible for someone to think critically about an issue in scripture and still come to a conclusion that has been traditionally held. Your comment seemed to indicate that to hold to a traditional viewpoint simply means to decide what we want to believe and find scripture to underpin it. I have no doubt that is often true, but I would argue that it isn’t always true. I am someone who has spent time in ministry and I have been exposed to a great deal of literature and graduate classwork that has challenged previous assumptions I had made. In many cases, I changed my previous understanding based on that evidence, but there are some “traditional” positions I would still hold. I know that my background has influenced me, but I would like to think that I am attempting intellectual honesty.

Secondly, if someone with a “traditional” position read your comment, they would notice some rhetorical strategy that is frustrating. When we start talking about a position as “Grandpa’s” opinion or we describe someone going to “Strong’s,” the implication is pretty evident that we are assuming that person is outdated. It is not helpful, in my opinion, to tell people in essence – “If you were really using reason rather than tradition,” or “If you just understood what I understand” you would see how wrong you are. Just as one group does not like to be told that because of their position, they do not believe scripture, I would say the other does not like to be told that, because of the position they hold on an issue, they have not spent enough time honestly considering the evidence.

I certainly am not posting this to be argumentative, and I apologize if it sounds that way. I am merely trying to articulate some things I believe we need to keep in mind. Thank you to the moderator for the opportunity to have this kind of discussion.

Good thoughts Andrew…I agree completely. Traditional viewpoints are often very much scriptural viewpoints. Whereas tradition does not equal scripture itself. In other words, long held beliefs are often very much scriptural/scripture based that have stood the test of time. That is a good thing. Traditions that are formed in the absence/silence of scripture are not on par with what we do have in scripture.

I agree that intellectual honesty is paramount in these discussions and in our own study. The truth has nothing to worry about and can defend itself. We must be open to learning, growing, and changing our opinions and views but only when warranted from scripture itself.

Hello Adam. I read your article via a common friend who shared it on FB. I found this heart breaking. It’s my prayer that your relationship with your grandfather is restored. For what it’s worth, you did the right thing giving him a heads up. I would really appreciate follow up posts on lessons learned as the church you work with goes through this transition.

For some great articles on how we read the Bible and biblical interpretation go to the Wineskins Archive and look at November 2014 – http://archives.wineskins.org/

Here are the titles you will find there:
Re-examining How We Read the Bible By Matt Dabbs
Reading the Bible and the Bible Reading You By Josh Graves
My Bible is Crowded By Dan Bouchelle
What I Learned Re-Writing the Bible By Sean Palmer
The B-I-B-L-E #1 By Mike Cope
The B-I-B-L-E #2 By Mike Cope
The B-I-B-L-E #3 By Mike Cope
The B-I-B-L-E #4 By Mike Cope
The B-I-B-L-E #5 By Mike Cope
The B-I-B-L-E #6 By Mike Cope
The B-I-B-L-E #7 By Mike Cope
The B-I-B-L-E #8 By Mike Cope
A Few “Aha’s” From Studying Scripture By Matt Dabbs
How To Read the Bible: Annotated Bibliography By Matt Dabbs
Reading the Bible in Churches of Christ By Patrick Mead
Book Review: “The Bible Made Impossible by Christian Smith” By Naomi Walters
Building Stronger Marriages By Trey Morgan
Can We Still Believe the Bible By Craig Blomberg
Five Questions to Jump Start Your Bible Study By Ken Cukrowski
Five Practices to Refresh Your Devotional Reading By Ken Cukrowski
Don’t Close Your Eyes: Psalm 4 and Me … Praying the Psalms (Part 1) By Bobby Valentine
Don’t Close Your Eyes: Psalm 4 and Me … Praying the Psalms (Part 2) By Bobby Valentine
A Hermeneutic of Hope By Les Ferguson
Mercy over Sacrifice: The Missing Principle in “Muscle and a Shovel” By John Mark Hicks
Inerrancy, A Parable (Appetizer) By Jay Guin
Inerrancy, A Parable (Entree) By Jay Guin
Inerrancy, A Parable (Dessert) By Jay Guin
Inerrancy, A Parable (Coffee) By Jay Guin
Inerrancy, A Parable (Midnight Snack) By Jay Guin
Inerrancy: A Parable (Morning Espresso) By Jay Guin
Exodus 34: The Pulse of the Bible By Bobby Valentine

“Churches must be willing to address the deeper question of hermeneutics before they can even begin to talk through questions of interpretation. ”

It’s been 2,000+ years and Christians seriously haven’t figured out how to read the bible yet? Whose fault is that? Why would a higher power choose to give his great message to the world through a book that people – 2,000 years later – are still trying to understand how to even read?!